Added another rule for missing SRI#128
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
LGTM |
lauramccluskey1
approved these changes
Nov 12, 2024
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What?
We were waiting to hear from lab for gene to be confirmed for one of the missing SRIs from Leeds,(detected during CASREF Refresh) so now it's added in this PR.
Why?
Fiona wanted to be sure if the combination of moleculartestingtype and indicationcategory is meant for MLH1 and asked lab to confirm. Today email has been answered by Rachel from Leeds.
How?
Rules have been updated to include above combination to determine gene.
Testing?
Have run locally and now query return expected result of 3845 -
Anything else ?
For reference email dated 22 July 2024 from Fiona "FW: Leeds CRC SRIs" can be seen.